Saturday, January 02, 2016

Interfaith Bridges to Islam

Writing as an atheist, I at first thought it would
be difficult to comment on a specific part of Stephen Coughlin’s Catastrophic
Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, which is Part XI:
Interfaith Outreach (Appendix One, pp. 511-574). But Coughlin presents the
subject in such clear terms that it was fascinating and definitely instructive to
observe how the Islamic Movement ensnares Christians and Jews in “interfaith
dialogue” for the Muslim Brotherhood’s own nefarious purposes. Much of the
slithering methods of the interfaith dialogue promoted by various Islamic
organizations, which can be viewed as a master template, can be seen in how
Muslim “experts” in Islam are used to help American counter-intelligence
formulate useless and vacuous analyses of threats by ISIS and al-Qaeda and
other terrorist groups, which is also exhaustively detailed by Coughlin in his
book.

Readers and fans of my novels know that I can mock
any religion, but refrain from such business in real life because all those
religions but one are not out to kill, convert, or subjugate me. They leave me
alone, I leave them alone. Except for Mormon and Jehovah Witnesses
door-knockers, who are mostly unsolicited pests. They’re not on my doorstep for
long.

The exception is Islam.

The biggest beneficiary of postmodernism – that is,
the broad movement of denial of the value and efficacy of reason – aside from
the Democrats, aside from the “trigger warning” and “safe place” addicts, aside
from the advocates of open borders, aside from the advocates of moral relativism,
aside from gun-control advocates, aside from Black Lives Matter, aside from the
assailants on the First Amendment, and etc., is Islam. In the suffocating, mind-stunting miasma of
postmodernist thought and practice in Western culture, the biggest victor is
and will continue to be Islam.

Postmodernism has allowed Islam unopposed and
unparalleled entrée into the minds and values of Westerners. Coughlin discusses
how this entrée works and the consequences of Christian and Jewish religionists
compromising their own beliefs by agreeing to form a “united front” for peace
and coexistence and multi-beliefs with Islam. He correctly identifies the chief
culprit and enabler of Muslim Brotherhood-dominated interfaith dialogue as
postmodernism. Postmodernism is not incidental to the inroads being made by
Islam in the West. It is a key factor.

Without the assist of postmodernism – which Islam
did not create – neither the Brotherhood nor the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation (OIC) could exploit the self-criticism of the West nor inveigle
their way into the language and behavior of non-Muslim interfaith participants.
Islam would be stopped cold, told to return to the miserable pestholes from
which it came, and not admitted through the gates of Aristotelian thought. The
shiny shield of reason consistently applied to everything and every idea, could
not be breached by the underhanded finagling and deft finessing machinations of
the Brotherhood and the OIC.

A West that doubts or questions its own value qua
West is destined for destruction, either by Islam or by “its own hands.” Islam
will provide the rope.

Islam has proved adept in exploiting the
anti-reason, anti-man culture of the postmodern world. But its somersaults and
linguistic gymnastics would fall flat in a one hundred percent Aristotelian
West.

Postmodernism as a
philosophical movement is largely a reaction against the philosophical
assumptions and values of the modern period of Western (specifically European)
history—i.e., the period from about the time of the scientific revolution of
the 16th and 17th centuries to the mid-20th century. Indeed, many of the
doctrines characteristically associated with postmodernism can fairly be
described as the straightforward denial of general philosophical viewpoints
that were taken for granted during the 18th-century Enlightenment,
though they were not unique to that period.

For example:

The
descriptive and explanatory statements of scientists and historians can, in
principle, be objectively true or false. The postmodern denial of this
viewpoint—which follows from the rejection of an objective natural reality—is
sometimes expressed by saying that there is no such thing as Truth.

The Brotherhood and the OIC would agree: There is
no such thing as Truth – except for the “truth” of Islam. And what is it that
the Brotherhood and the OIC have had successes in corrupting, sabotaging, and
misdirecting?

Reason
and logic are universally
valid—i.e., their laws are the same for, or apply equally to, any thinker and
any domain of knowledge. For postmodernists, reason and logic too are merely
conceptual constructs and are therefore valid only within the established
intellectual traditions in which they are used.

Coughlin begins “Interfaith Outreach” with:

While
penetrating government and civil organizations is important, the interfaith
movement constitutes a major supporting line of operations in Brotherhood
penetration operations. Through subversion of the interfaith community, the Brotherhood
seeks to manipulate other religions in furtherance of dislocating their faith.
[Its ultimate goal being the imposition of Sharia law.] Regarding the
interfaith community, the “hands of the believers” are primarily the
Brotherhood and Islamic Movement participants, while “their hands” refers to
those non-Muslim clerics (ministers, priests, and rabbis) who help facilitate
the mission of “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.”
[Excerpted from the Brotherhood Explanatory
Memorandum of 1991.] Because a
Quranic basis exists for what the Brotherhood strategy states is its
intent,all interfaith activities
emanating from or involving known Brotherhood groups should be viewed with this
understanding. (p. 512)

Imams and other Muslims who meet with non-Muslim
clerics are not so much having a “dialogue” as engaging in dawah, or Islamic proselytizing. It is a one-way street, and the
non-hostile, non-threatening conviviality of Muslim clerics with the clerics of
the People of the Book (Christians and Jews, called in the Koran apes and pigs) blinds the clerics to what is actually
happening.

Coughlin discusses at length book published in 2011
by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), based in Herndon,
Virginia., Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide
for Muslims, by Muhammad Shatfiq and Mohammed Abu-Nimmer. It is a kind of
guide of what to do and say and what not to or say when having a “dialogue”
with non-Muslim clerics.

From another Islamic publication, The Methodology of Dawah Illallah in
American Perspective, by Shamin Siddiqi, published in 1989 by The Forum for
Islamic Work, based in Brooklyn, New York, Coughlin quotes from Siddiqi on the
similarities between that publication and Interfaith
Dialogue:

The
I.M.O.A. [Islamic Movement in America – an early designation for the Muslim
Brotherhood in America] will open dialogues with dignitaries of the religious
institutions, presenting Islam as the common legacy of Judeo-Christian
religions and as the only Guidance now available to mankind in its most perfect
form for its Falah (Deliverance and
Salvation). These talks must be held in a very
friendly and non-aggressive atmosphere, as directed by Allah (SWT) in the
Qur'an as to how to talk with people of the scripture – “And argue not with the people of the Scripture unless it be in a way
that is better.” [bold the author’s] (Al- Qur'an-- 28,.46)

The “common legacy,” Muslim dialogue participants
will not enlighten their opposite numbers with, is that the Koran historically
was a work-in-progress over centuries that cadged from Judeo-Christian texts
and lore. Coughlin:

As
Siddiqi stated, the Brotherhood views the methodologies used in dawah as
prescribed by Allah. When assessing the intentions of the Brotherhood’s work
product, it is important to remember that is manner of communication is
generally consistent with Omar Ahmad’s requirements to send two messages in the
same communication:

…We
will recognize the source of any message which comes out of us…if a message is
publicized, we will know…the media person among us will recognize that you send
two messages; one to the Americans and
one to the Muslims…. (Bold Coughlin’s]

Coughlin highlights what non-Muslim clerics ought
to know about the Brotherhood’s ends that is rooted in Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones,
but don’t know because they are too enthralled by the prospect of having a dialogue
with Muslims without being cursed out or killed.

Another
indicator that interfaith Dialogue
reflects the Muslim Brotherhood mission is the repeated allusion to bridge
building. Sayyid Qutb used this term in Milestones
to set the limits of dawah interaction with non-Muslims: “the chasm between
Islam and Jahiliyyah [society and
government of unbelievers, or, pagan ignorance; specifically, a pre-Koranic
state of ignorance ]is great, and a bridge is not to be built across it so that
the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people
of Jahiliyyah may come over to Islam.” P. 515)

In short, the interfaith dialogue “bridge” only exists,
as far as the Muslim Brotherhood is concerned, to facilitate non-believers to
cross over to Islam. It’s a one-way bridge. Muslims will never cross it to join
the non-believers.

There’s more. Why are Muslim clerics so eager to
share the same air with infidel clerics? Coughlin writes:

Interfaith Dialogue positions Hudaybiyah[a
ten-year “treaty,” actually a truce, between Mohammad and Meccans in 628 A.D.] to
establish the claim the Prophet had an overwhelming interest in maintaining
peace, even going so far as entering into treaties that were unpopular and
humiliating. Interfaith Dialogue
states:

The
treaty shows that the Prophet preferred peace even at the cost of annoying some
of his close followers. He knew that peaceful living would allow Muslims to
dialogue with non-Muslims, move about freely, and build relations with other
tribes. The treaty is an excellent example of giving the extra mile with others
to achieve peace.

But, there’s a catch, which Coughlin details.

Without
an awareness of Islamic law [Sharia], interfaith partners read this observation
and think it reflects an ongoing commitment to peace grounded in an explicit
preference of the Prophet. Yet a quick reference to Reliance of the Traveller makes it clear that this is not the case.
The relevant shariah is in the section on jihad concerning truces. Reliance shows that Islamic law does not
permit treaties, but recognizes only truces that are made on a short-term
basis. Of note, Interfaith Dialogue erroneously
designates Hudaybiyyahas a treaty,
not a truce.

Further,
because truces require the nonperformance of jihad, truces are disfavored,
cannot be entered into merely to preserve the status quo, and can only be made
in times when Muslim weakness, lack of numbers, or because the other side may
convert to Islam. (p. 516)

Briefly, no member of the tripartite alliance of jihad, dawah, and ummah in the
organizing principle, which is Sharia, can nullify, frustrate, or contradict
the other two. They work together as one entity in an aggressive ideological gestalt.

Non-Muslim interfaith partners are misled or
deluded when they encounter in their “dialogue” with their Muslim opposite
numbers such terms as “peace,” “goodwill,” “justice,” “injustice,” “liberty of
thought,” and “human rights.” They do not realize, or do not care to know, that
these terms only apply to Muslims. “Peace” is the peace of a global caliphate. “Goodwill”
is extended solely to Muslims. “Justice and “injustice” apply only to Muslims. “Liberty
of thought” means being “free” to convert to Islam. And only Muslims have “human
rights.” Non-Muslims are “tolerated” only if they pay the jizya or poll tax imposed by Islamic authorities. If they refuse,
they die.

When Christian and Jewish clerics read something
like:

Islam
is not an arbitrary religion, nor has it ever ordered Muslims to force others
to adopt it even though it is the final and complete revelation from God. He
says: “Let there by no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from
error.” (Sayyid Qutb, in Islam and Universal
Peace, Q.II.256). (pp. 518-519)

…their “hearts
and minds” go aflutter at the prospect of “getting along” with their Muslim “brothers,”
unaware that the words they are familiar with mean that it is an issue of
converting to Islam. The phrase, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” is an
invitation to voluntarily convert to Islam,
that the “Truth” is Islam, and that the “error” is their Christianity or Jewish
faith.

Coughlin notes:

When
Jewish or Christian “partners” work with Muslim Brothers who declare a complete
commitment to peace, are they aware of what is being committed to? The only
thing worse than interfaith partners not knowing the Brotherhood’s agenda when
they engage in outreach with them is that some partners may know. As shepherds of their respective flocks, interfaith
leaders should take the time to know the equities and interests of all parties.
Shepherds who cannot recognize the wolf are not good shepherds. (p. 519)

When meeting with their Muslim interfaith partners,
there are rules that govern the “give and take” about what to say about one’s
religion. But, with Islam, it’s all “take” and very little “give.” It’s the
Jews and Christians who must do the “soul searching” and “reflection” about the
“truth” of their faiths. The terms “reciprocity,” “trust,” and “honesty” might
be in the dialogue lexicon, but they’re not observed by the Muslims. “Reciprocity,”
in the context of interfaith dialogue, for Muslims is nearly akin to shirk or apostasy, while “honesty” about Islam is right out. The truth
about Islam might frighten the “partners” away, and that would be the end of
the dialogue. The Brotherhood has invested too much effort in getting the
infidel clerics to “sabotage their miserable faiths by their own hands” and at
the hands of the Brotherhood to indulge in frank and brutal honesty about Islam
and their goals. “Trust,” to Muslims, is an understanding that their interfaith
“partners” will not ask Muslims embarrassing questions that would require Muslims
to bare their true intentions. Not that they ever would in any circumstance.

But Christian and Jewish dialogue partners are so
anxious to “iron things out “with their Muslim opposite numbers that they are
virtually hypnotized by their own delusions about what is possible. In effect,
they become subordinate to the Muslim clerics, because the dialogue is
conducted solely on Islamic terms. This is in keeping with the Islamic goal of
becoming the dominant religion; no concessions are made by Muslim interfaith
partners. The “bridge” they throw across the chasm of doctrinal differences is
meant for the infidel clerics to cross over to Islam. Muslims will never set
foot on it.

There are, writes Coughlin, Jewish and Christian
clerics who know what the score is, yet continue the interfaith dialogue
charade and have prestige invested in it. They are willing to compromise – and even
betray – their core religious beliefs to publically meet their Muslim opposite
numbers “half way,” knowing that their Muslim “partners” are in the game for
the whole pot.Coughlin writes:

Coughlin cites the three laws of Aristotelian logic
– the law of identity, the law of the non-contradiction, and the law of the
excluded middle – to drive home his point that Jewish and Christian clerics,
visi-a-vis their religious principles, are products of our postmodern culture. They
are willing to accept the contradictions, and hang all their hopes and wishes
for a multifaith détenteon a phantom excluded middle. They are
fascinated with and entranced by the crocodile that smiles at them, unaware
that sooner or later, the crocodile will attack and eat them, but not before
drowning them in their own folly.